Your rights at work

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Your rights at work

  1. Scapula


    Political conversations will happen at wok as long as bosses don’t shut them down.

    The legislation is about extreme forms of conduct in the workplace that no decent society would tolerate.

  2. JC

    The legislation is about extreme forms of conduct in the workplace that no decent society would tolerate.

    Like what, Bob?

  3. Cato the Elder

    Like whatever the luvvies don’t like, JC

    But you knew that 🙂

  4. Scapula

    So what’s your idea of politics in the workplace, Joe?

    A Catallaxy shouting and screaming match with expletives undeleted.

  5. Cato the Elder

    Seriously though, the only thing I didn’t agree with is the suggestion that this is an “extraordinary attack”. It’s not, it’s business as usual for these slime.

  6. JC

    Answer the question Bob. Like what?

  7. Cato the Elder

    Rubbish to you too, Scap. It doesn’t have to be extreme, it only has to “offend”, which we know is a subjective test.

    Try harder, you’re not at all convincing.

  8. John Mc

    I’m happy to test this legislation out.

    Does this mean I can have someone disciplined for making reference to ‘dead white males’ in a derogatory sense, implying the influence of the white race, but especially the male sex, over the past few centuries has been destructive and they should get back in their place? Because (really) I am offended that it’s OK to say this and I would like to put a stop to this crap.

    Ditto, people who imply that Jewish people are brutal and inherently treat other races badly. These people should shut the fuck up and learn what civilisation is about. I would love to see them pulled aside by a nervous employer.

    (For the record, ultimately all this oppression on free speech is bad. But it wouldn’t stop me using it to get fuckheads a hard time.)

  9. Scapula

    So someone is at work and up pops a communist who starts singing the Communist Manifesto in ancient Greek and that’s not a problem when he knows you’re a Latinist, read Catallaxy and he’s interfering with your work?

    And you’ve told him several times to stop annoying you?

  10. JC

    So you have no real answer, do you Bob, you fat useless pig.

  11. JC

    Like whatever the luvvies don’t like, JC

    But you knew that 🙂

    of course.

  12. Scapula

    Joe, your spirt has left you, you’ve dried up, withered and decayed your language repeats itself endlessly – fat, pigs, etc.

  13. JC

    Sorry if I offend you Bob.

    Now answer the question. Like what, porky?

  14. Cato the Elder


    The amusing thing is that, while your example would be just one of life’s little irritations under a sane system, under this system that you say is OK, it would be “discrimination”.

    Not only that; but with the reversed onus of proof, you’d be the one trying to prove that it wasn’t.

    If you thought there was any chance of this inane law being used against you, you’d scream blue murder and rightly so. So you must believe that it will be enforced “sensibly”, in other words, they way that you want.

    You must try harder, you’re getting nowhere.

  15. Scapula

    Nonsense, this campaign is just another intellectually-dishonest diversion.

  16. Cato the Elder

    You’ve still got nuffin’

    Answer JC’s question, maybe that will get you somewhere.

  17. Scapula

    I don’t respond to idiots like you.

  18. Cato the Elder

    just did

    nyah nyah nyah 😀

  19. Scapula

    My God, you are an idiot!

  20. Gab

    No argument from the Scrappy one, just abuse. Typical lefty.

  21. Cato the Elder

    You are unwilling or unable to respond to sane questions with anything other than bile, distraction or insult.

    Fuck off, troll.

  22. Cato the Elder

    Shore ’nuff Gab.

    I like to give them the benefit of the doubt; but he’s got nuffin’. A complete waste of time.

  23. Scapula

    I’ve already replied to JC. so I’m not going to repeat myself.

  24. Cato the Elder

    Your “reply” was not an answer.

    Because you have no answer. You’ve. Got. NOTHING.

  25. Scapula

    Its legislation you oppose, and legislation I did not propose, so its up to you to give good reasons why you are right to oppose it.

  26. wreckage

    Because it’s stupid to bring the lawyers in to settle everyday disputes such as, but not limited to, offence, irritation, hurt feelings, and miss-he-said.

    Consider the much-reviled culture of suing at the slightest injury, which not two years ago was touted by the left as proof positive of the inferiority of Americans. Now not only are Australians more litigious than Americans, we go to court if we feel offended!

    Meanwhile the ALP is running an ongoing campaign of “Ignore our corruption because mumble mumble mumble THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE! TEA PARTY!”

    Under their own legislation, shouldn’t they be in some sort of legal trouble? I’m a Libertarian roughly half the time, and they made me cry.

  27. wreckage

    Its legislation you oppose, and legislation I did not propose

    Which, by your own logic, suggests you should refrain from commenting unless you have a good argument for the affirmative. Which you don’t.

  28. Scapula

    This is the second thread on this topic and I’ve yet to see a sustained argument against this legislation.

    Your argument is a repetition of the slight argument that does appear; namely, why should a little bit of political conversation result in a law suit?

    The threshold at which the discrimination against someone for his or her political opinions while working kicks in is far higher than that.

    And unless you take a more honest approach to the threshold question, the argument against the law is basically the lie that hurt feelings will invoke it.

  29. Scapula

    Dishing out unfavourable treatment, harrassing, offending, insulting or intimidating a person – all terms from the legislation – for their political opinions while they are working is not censoring talk about politics.

    There is no mention of hurt feelings and irritation.

    The threshold is much higher than that so there is no censorship.

    There is only a prohibition against the kind of offensive behaviour that you would hope to be not present in workplaces at any level.

    And for the right that has systematically destroyed rights in the workplace, with great help from the Gillard Government, to be talking about defending rights to free speech in the workplace is totally spurious.

  30. C.L.

    Scapula agrees with Gillard and Himmler that “thresholds” exist for the lawful discussion of politics with other members of the volk in workplaces.

    We see this more and more: the (not so strange) simpatico today between the left and the fascists of the 1930s.

  31. Poidar

    So let me get this right…
    unfavourable treatment,
    offensive conduct,
    insulting or intimidating a person.

    That’s all now illegal in a workplace?

    Could it be that the ALP are finally passing legislation to curb union power in the workplace?

    Nah! I must be dreaming.

  32. johno

    Welcome to the brave new world of the Green/Labor dictatorship. I wonder when she will abolish nasty irritants like parliamentary democracy and fair and open elections. Nothing must stand in the way of the great cause of keeping the Liar in the Lodge.

  33. Polder, you’re forgetting some people are more equal than others.

  34. Rabz

    Do the liberals have a position on this rubbish, or are they simply going to ignore it, as per their courageous stand on Section 18c?

    They’d better bloody ditch this, or else they’ll be hearing from me in no uncertain terms…

  35. The breathless delivery of the video sets the tone – sound and fuly signifying nothing. This will end up operating like most HR legislation – only an issue for the professionally indignant and delusional Libertarians.

  36. 81Alpha

    Gawd help us, old Uncle Ho has crawled out from the crypt to bring us more re-education gems.

  37. blogstrop

    We see this more and more: the (not so strange) simpatico today between the left and the fascists of the 1930s.

    Yes. As described by Nick Cohen in “What’s left?”, some years ago. But more strange indeed is the sympaticollaboration with the islamic bovver boys.

  38. Jannie

    We see this more and more: the (not so strange) simpatico today between the left and the fascists of the 1930s.

    Yes. As described by Nick Cohen in “What’s left?”, some years ago. But more strange indeed is the sympaticollaboration with the islamic bovver boys

    Yeah CL and blogstrop, even a schoolboy in the 1960s could note the affinity between the NDSAP and the CPSU, and explain it by a circular continuum, where the far Left and Right meet.

    Nick Cohen is great to read, and does describe the madness, but why am I continually mystified by the alliance between the Left and the Islamists? Since the Iranian revolution I have concluded that the Islamists are smarter than the Leftists, and get more out of the deal. Weird man, medieval towelheads smarter than the flower of our universities?

  39. Ellen of Tasmania

    Scapula, in your example, if someone is interfering with your work, do you not think there are already avenues that you could take to stop that? If a person’s behaviour is so disruptive, don’t you think a business could manage to deal with that?

    Also, why should a private business not be free to employ and fire whomever they please, for whatever reason they want? The job is not owned by the person employed, it’s the position made available by the employer. If other people find the company’s position disagreeable, they are free to avoid it.

  40. 81Alpha

    Ellen, haven’t you got the memo?
    All Bosses are bastards who exploit the poor, unfortunate workers for sadistic fun and evil, evil profit!

    Trying to talk sense to Crapula is akin to expecting General Duties to renounce the Communism actually he fought against but now supports.
    Such are our enemies for good or ill.
    As Janine intones, they are as thick as the moons of Mercury.

  41. Notice how quickly the Left Fascists rush to defend this legislation, CL. They do not seem to understand that the same legislation can be used against them.
    As I’ve said before, they cannot imagine that they may be sitting in front of the desk answering questions put by the Geheime Staatspolizei – they always assume they will be the ones asking the questions.

  42. Scapula

    So why are Liberals defending this legislation if it is that fascist?

  43. Scapula

    I can only read Brandis complaining complaining about a technical aspect of the bill. Not a word from him about killing off free speech or have I missed that?

    Or is he another left Fascist?

  44. jumpnmcar

    A little article in the courier mail today described an argument ( in the UK i think) where a man called some woman ” a fat Australian pig ” , but she was a New Zealander.
    She sued because she was offended on racial grounds, and won!!

  45. Scapula

    You obviously haven’t been following English soccer.

    You also left out the expletive.

    The reality is that if you engage in racially aggravated threatening, insulting, abusive words or behaviour you’re breaking the law in England.

    A public place is not considered appropriate for this behaviour.

    What a surprise!

  46. jumpnmcar

    What has race got to do with….

    Forget it, there’s no point in discussing anything with you.

  47. .

    Gawd help us, old Uncle Ho has crawled out from the crypt to bring us more re-education gems.

    Lulz…yeah I wish he didn’t get conscripted, they gave us back the Commandant of the Ho Chi Minh Young Pioneer League…

  48. Scapula

    Yes, they should use a term other than race, rather than using the term in the modern sense.

    Used in the old discredited biologistic understanding of race, Australians are not a race.

  49. Samuel J

    If the anti-discrimination law is passed, does that mean that voters could be charged for voting against an incumbent candidate?

Comments are closed.